R v Griffiths - [2009] QCA 264

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Griffiths [2009] QCA 264

PARTIES:

R
v
GRIFFITHS, Jesse Daniel
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 177 of 2009
DC No 125 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

Orders delivered ex tempore on 27 August 2009
Reasons delivered on 8 September 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 August 2009

JUDGES:

Keane and Chesterman JJA and P Lyons J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

Delivered ex tempore 27 August 2009

1.   Application for leave to appeal be allowed;

2.   Appeal be allowed;

3.   Set aside the sentence imposed below and in lieu impose a sentence of two years imprisonment suspended after a period;

4.   Applicant pay $3,150 to the Deputy Registrar of the District Court of Maroochydore within six months by way of restitution to the owner of the car.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to a charge of wilfully and unlawfully setting fire to a motor vehicle – where applicant was sentenced to a term of two years' imprisonment to be suspended after six months for an operational period of three years – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited
R v Barling [1999] QCA 16, cited
R v Cramond [1999] QCA 11, cited
R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603, cited
R v Law; ex parte Attorney-General [1996] 2 Qd R 63; [1995] QLA 444, cited
R v Webber (2000) 114 A Crim R 381; [2000] QCA 316, cited
Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267; [2001] HCA 21, cited

COUNSEL:

J D Briggs for the applicant
M B Lehane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

KEANE JA: I agree with the reasons given by Chesterman JA for the orders made by this Court on 27 August 2009.

CHESTERMAN JA: On 29 June 2009 the applicant pleaded guilty in the Maroochydore District Court to a charge of wilfully and unlawfully setting fire to a motor vehicle on 20 April 2007. He was sentenced to a term of two years’ imprisonment to be suspended after six months for an operational period of three years. He appeals against the sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive. Leave was given at the hearing to add further grounds which are but particulars of the complaint that the sentence was excessive. One, however, the further ground 2, is worth noting:

“... The ... sentencing judge erred in the exercise of his discretion by failing to account for the applicant’s voluntary disclosure of his guilt ...”.

At the conclusion of the appeal the Court ordered that…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Griffiths

Details

AGLC: R v Griffiths [2009] QCA 264
Case: [2009] QCA 264
Decision Date: 27 August 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Griffiths involved an appeal against the sentence imposed on the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to wilfully and unlawfully setting fire to a motor vehicle. The matter was heard in the District Court of Maroochydore, and the applicant sought leave to appeal the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, warranting interference by the appellate court. The applicant's counsel contended that the two-year imprisonment term, suspended after six months with an operational period of three years, was disproportionate to the offence committed. The Crown argued that the sentence was within the appropriate range, taking into account the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence.

The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offence, but held that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. It was observed that the sentence did not adequately reflect the objective seriousness of the offence, nor did it provide sufficient general deterrence. The court also considered the principles of parity in sentencing, noting that similar cases had resulted in lesser sentences. As a result, the appeal was allowed, the original sentence was set aside, and a new sentence of three years' imprisonment, suspended after a specified period, was imposed. Additionally, the applicant was ordered to pay restitution to the owner of the car in the amount of $3,150.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal be allowed;

2. Appeal be allowed;

3. Set aside the sentence imposed below and in lieu impose a sentence of three years imprisonment suspended after a period;

4. Applicant pay $3,150 to the Deputy Registrar of the District Court of Maroochydore within six months by way of restitution to the owner of the car.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Griffiths [2009] QCA 264
PARTIES:	R v GRIFFITHS, Jesse Daniel (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 177 of 2009 DC No 125 of 2009
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Maroochydore
DELIVERED ON:	Orders delivered ex tempore on 27 August 2009 Reasons delivered on 8 September 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27 August 2009
JUDGES:	Keane and Chesterman JJA and P Lyons J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	Delivered ex tempore 27 August 2009 1. Application for leave to appeal be allowed; 2. Appeal be allowed; 3. Set aside the sentence imposed below and in lieu impose a sentence of two years imprisonment suspended after a period; 4. Applicant pay $3,150 to the Deputy Registrar of the District Court of Maroochydore within six months by way of restitution to the owner of the car.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to a charge of wilfully and unlawfully setting fire to a motor vehicle – where applicant was sentenced to a term of two years' imprisonment to be suspended after six months for an operational period of three years – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited R v Barling [1999] QCA 16, cited R v Cramond [1999] QCA 11, cited R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603, cited R v Law; ex parte Attorney-General [1996] 2 Qd R 63; [1995] QLA 444, cited R v Webber (2000) 114 A Crim R 381; [2000] QCA 316, cited Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267; [2001] HCA 21, cited
COUNSEL:	J D Briggs for the applicant M B Lehane for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent